Gardner v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Gookin v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. (1992), Pritchard v. State, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Health & Social Services (1975)
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · 85 So. 2d 834 - Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Boone · Peterson v. Johnson · Iowa National Mutual Insurance v. Huntley · Wilson v. Gibbes MacHinery Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first and fundamental question on every appeal is that of jurisdiction; this question cannot be waived; it is open for consideration by the reviewing court whenever it is raised by any party, or it may be raised by the court of its own motion.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Subdivision (c) of Rule 25 deals with' transfers of interest during the course of the action. The situation with which it is concerned may be compared and contrasted to that obtaining where a transfer of interest, such as by an assignment, takes place prior to the commencement of the action. In the latter situation Rule 17 controls and requires that the action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. But where the transfer of interest takes place during the course of the action, Rule 25(c) controls and provides that the action may be continued by or against the original party whose interest has been transferred, unless the court, upon motion, directs that the person to whom the interest has been transferred be substituted in the action, or joined with the original party. Whether or not substitution or joinder is ordered under Rule 25(c), this does not affect the respective substantive rights of the transferor or transferee pendente lite and it is entirely a matter of convenience. Thus, if a motion for substitution under Rule 25(c) is made, the disposition of the motion depends on the sound discretion of the trial court, taking into account the exigencies of the situation. The court, in the exercise of its discretion, may find it more convenient that the original party, who in this situation is held able to continue the action, do so without making the transferee a party.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Erb v. Erb
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.